Suppose that the wage or labor value used by capitalists to hire workers is 4 hours of labor time, and then the capitalists let workers work for 8 hours, and the surplus value is 4 hours, that is, 8-4 = 4. This inference seems simple, but it is of great significance, that is, as Marx said, value has nothing to do with technology (excluding any atoms that use value), but only shows that people dominate the dominated social (power) relations. In capitalist economy, value is transformed into surplus value, and exchange based on labor is transformed into exchange based on surplus labor or profit.
This kind of surplus value theory is the conclusion that Marx wants to get by analyzing the value theory in an abstract way, or the purpose of the labor theory of value established by Marx, that is, Marx abstracts all other factors (such as use value and labor productivity), thus putting value into labor and labor time, thus showing the social (power) relationship between people or capitalist economic relationship. Let me give you an example to represent this power relationship with value. For example, if I am a capitalist and I work as a female worker, I can ask her to dig with a tractor 1 hour, or I can ask her to dig with a hoe 1 hour, or I can ask her to undress and dance for you 1 hour. In this power relationship, you can't find the marginal productivity of producing a specific cake at all. In this power relationship, people play with people's power relationship, that is, the labor (behavior) of this female worker during this period does not belong to her, but to me as a capitalist. This is the power (slavery) relationship represented by value.
That is to say, total value, total profit and total profit rate have nothing to do with technical productivity, just as a department with low material production efficiency may have the same or even higher profit rate as a department with high material production efficiency.
(Note: Surplus value is not equal to profit, only the total surplus value of the whole system is equal to total profit, and profit means that surplus value is the form of currency conversion, and price is the monetary value of value, just as the surplus value of loss-making enterprises cannot be converted into profit. )
——————
If you want a systematic understanding, please see the supplementary content of my digression.
Use value (a useful attribute of things or material wealth) means that things exist objectively in that form without real creation. The natural force of human labor can only guide other natural forces to change the shape of things and transform their attributes. However, human labor in commodity production does have duality. The first kind of human labor, as a part of natural forces, guides other natural forces to change the shape of things in order to transform the attributes of things. The second kind, as abstract labor of value, is the alienated labor of people who dominate people and play with power relations, according to the economic philosophy manuscript of 1844. (The second section of the first volume of Das Kapital says that there is no real creation in the use value. )
Currency (value) appreciation originates from surplus value (surplus labor) production, that is, the process of value appreciation is to create alienation that most people do not belong to in a longer period of time.
Therefore, labor has no value. "Labor value" and "whether labor is valuable or not" are shameless terms, which cover up the power relationship that human beings dominate labor (behavior) and shamelessly cover up that value is alienated human labor itself! (In the 17th section of the sixth article in the first volume of Das Kapital, Marx criticized the word "the value of labor" and pointed out that labor has no value! )
The value of labor is equal to the so-called bullshit credit and contribution of labor. What is credit and contribution? Just as I ordered you to skin your daughter and make my shoes, I also took part in the labor. This is a result, a credit and a contribution for me, but it is a painful alienation torture for you. This is the same thing as the currency appreciation of capitalism, which is a credit and contribution for capitalists, but it takes longer for workers.
In Marx's logic, value is undifferentiated human labor itself condensed in commodities. Or that value is alienated human labor itself, then it represents not the wealth and cake that commodity fetishism thinks, but power, and price is the value measured by monetary value (dominated labor). Obviously, the concept of value does not represent the equilibrium price, but it is equivalent to the wealth represented by the concept of goods or services in neoclassical economics and classical economics, but not the wealth represented by goods (services), but the dominated labor itself represents power, so the value is related to the total amount. This explains the transaction price of artworks, Yao Ming's salary and so on. These transaction prices are only a concession of value, and the total value of the whole system will not increase according to this scale. That is, the labor theory of value is to prove that the output value (or actual GDP) actually represents the power of the dominated labor representatives, rather than the so-called wealth, cake or total production function. The so-called economic growth is nothing more than the expansion of capitalist power relations. Understanding this point is very important for guiding the nation-state to destroy the capitalist world system.
At the same time, it is necessary to substitute the socially necessary labor time into the logic of human labor itself, not into the logic that value is material and labor produces material objects. Value is a kind of human labor itself, which is introduced by exchanging goods according to the proportion of equal labor, that is, when goods are exchanged according to the same proportion of socially necessary labor time, there are the same things in the imported goods, that is, human labor without distinction or human labor in the relationship between people dominating people and people playing with people's power. Therefore, the socially necessary labor time must be substituted into the logic of commodity exchange and average profit rate balance according to the same socially necessary labor time, not into the logic of supply. Substituting the former will naturally completely exclude the relationship between total value, total profit, general profit rate and technical factors, proving that value represents the power relationship between people, while the latter does involve technical productivity, which obviously violates Marx's original intention. Here, only the use value is related to technology, and the formation of value depends on the social relationship of private ownership of means of production. Only under the private ownership of the means of production can labor be enslaved into value.
Price fluctuates around value:
Assuming that the organic composition of capital (the ratio of C/V) is the same, the capitalist's commodity exchange scale here must not be lower than the exchange scale of value (socially necessary labor time), otherwise, if the money accumulation rate is lower than the average profit rate for a long time, the capital will shrink or go bankrupt, so the capital will not compete with technology and go bankrupt in an industry. Cumulative competition is the main form of capitalist competition. At this time, capital will compete through cumulative competition. If the house price rises and the profit rate is too high, even a bowl of noodles in the street noodle restaurant will increase in price, that is to say, the goods in most industries here will increase in price. When prices cannot be directly raised, capital will reduce production capacity, expel some workers, sell some assets with lower profit margins, and at the same time buy assets in areas with higher profit margins, so that the profit margins of low-profit industries will increase, while the profit margins of high-profit industries will decrease, thus making the prices of all industries close to the exchange ratio of value, and prices fluctuate around value. Similarly, deflation is the same thing. Because of the high unemployment rate during the period of deflation, capitalists can obviously depress workers' wages, directly increase working hours under the corresponding wages, or give lower wages under the corresponding working hours. In fact, this is the same as the cumulative competition during the inflation period, except that the depression of workers' wages during the inflation period was covered up by the market price fluctuations related to the profit rate adjustment.
In real capitalism, prices fluctuate around production prices;
When the organic composition of capital is different (the ratio of C/V is different), because the ratio of constant capital is high, if the price fluctuates around the value, the same amount of capital will not have the same profit, so that the capital with high constant capital ratio will inevitably fluctuate higher than the value, and the price with low constant capital ratio will inevitably fluctuate lower than the value, so it is possible to maintain a unified profit rate. The price that the average profit rate adds to the cost value is defined by Marx as the production price. Of course, if commodities with different organic components float according to their values and maintain the same profit rate, the exploitation rate will be different, but under the unified market, if the exploitation rate is higher than the average level, workers will flow away.
It can be seen that value is not a concept of balanced price, but a concept related to the total amount of substitute goods (or services) in all economics except Marx. It is not the wealth represented by physical objects, but the power represented by some dominated human labor itself. In this way, it is better to explain the transaction price of works of art, Yao Ming's salary and so on. It is a transfer of value, and the whole system does not add value according to this transaction scale, which is well explained from the total theory.
(Note: The increase of organic composition of capital is not the result of technical factors, but the result of continuous accumulation of capital. Because productivity increases, the value of capital goods such as production machines will also decrease accordingly, but enterprises with high organic capital composition will adopt more new technologies, just as whoever has more money is more likely to poach technical talents and buy advanced machines. Just because capital has higher institutional capital and adopted more new technologies, it cannot be considered that the increase in organic composition is caused by technological relations. This conclusion is ridiculous. The decline of general profit rate is not caused by technical relations, but by the continuous accumulation of capital and social relations. The improvement of organic composition is reflected in the continuous improvement of land rent and patent fees. Land rent and patent rights represent social relations, not technical relations. The capital goods that this constant capital can buy are actually a production price far higher than the value. )
As the basic theorem of Marxist economics, it is the source of surplus value or profit expressed by Marx's surplus value theory, that is, surplus value comes from workers' labor. Using Marx's formula, it is assumed that the wage or labor value used by capitalists to hire workers is 4 hours of labor time, and then the capitalists let workers work for 8 hours, and the residual value is 4 hours, that is, 8-4 = 4. This inference seems simple, but it is of great significance, that is, as Marx said, value has nothing to do with technology (excluding any atoms that use value), but only shows that people dominate the dominated social (power) relations. In capitalist economy, value is transformed into surplus value, and exchange based on labor is transformed into exchange based on surplus labor or profit.
When an individual produces for himself, he will save his own labor time, and the cost is the consumption of factors (labor consumption and resources), because the purpose of production here is the corresponding goods (or services).
When the purpose of production is profit, the cost is not the consumption of factors, but the exchange ratio represented by how much money is spent. Because profit is surplus labor measured by money, surplus labor that dominates others represents power. In this way, it is cheaper to exchange the corresponding salary for longer working hours, or pay lower wages under the corresponding working hours. The most typical example is to reduce staff and increase efficiency, not to improve the efficiency of material production in unit working hours, but to improve the efficiency of exploitation, that is, to make workers work longer hours that are not their own. It is based on this that Marx classified enterprises as the product of class struggle. (Obviously, there is no real enterprise or commodity production under socialism, and real socialism is non-commercial; Society is like a person using his own labor time and the total labor time of society, so it is not necessary to consider the profitability of any social organization, but only the total labor time or budget saving. )
Here, the cost of capitalism is not reflected in the role of labor value (the bullshit credit and contribution of labor) on the corresponding object, but in the power relationship that people dominate people's labor represented by labor value (labor with labor ability). When a laborer sells his labor ability to a capitalist, his labor during working hours does not belong to him, and all the labor he does is under the command of the capitalist.
——————————
(Marxist economics compares neoclassical economics (western classics) and talks about the paradox in neoclassical theory.
Here, it is particularly necessary to put forward the concept of capital in neoclassical theory. In neoclassical theory (western classics), capital is regarded as a production factor juxtaposed with labor, but as far as technical relations are concerned, it is more appropriate for Austrian school to regard capital as a kind of time (that is, circuitous production) because capital goods are produced by labor. When capital goods are regarded as a factor of production, it must be because the assumed analysis cycle is shorter than the production cycle. As long as we extend the analysis period, the stock of capital goods will be transformed into labor flow. In this way, capital goods are just "past labor" in a sense. Of course, this does not prevent the division of the stock of funded products and labor flow for some analytical needs. For example, from the perspective of technical relations, if there is technological progress, this division of stock and flow is meaningful. However, the difference between Marxist economics and neoclassical theory is not whether capital is a factor of production, whether the period of stock and flow is divided, but whether the value (monetary value) of capital (capital goods) in reality is determined by technical relations, or whether it represents human labor itself in human (social) relations. For example, a new machine and an old machine are used to produce a third machine at the same time. In the same enterprise, two workers with the same proficiency, one on a new machine with higher technical productivity and the other on an old machine with lower technical productivity, will run away if their wages are different. The cost of producing this third machine in capitalist enterprises is not the consumption of labor factors in technical relations, but how much money is spent and the exchange ratio represented by how much money is spent. Because two workers use different machines to produce the third machine, the technical productivity is different, but the salary is the same, and the value (price) of the third machine produced is the same. Therefore, it is not in line with the capitalist reality to regard capital as a machine in the production function or labor as a circuitous production in the past technical relations.
Just as the Cambridge Capital Debate reveals the fatal paradox in neoclassicism theory: in the micro-foundation of neoclassicism, a core proposition is that (especially in neoclassicism textbooks) the income of factors (labor and capital) is equal to their marginal products. So wages are equal to marginal products of labor, and profit rate is equal to marginal products of capital. Monetary measurement of capital means adding completely different objects, such as how laser and apple are added and what the addition means. Not to mention this fatal paradox. In the process of adding up unified monetary capital (because real capitalism is monetary economy and everything is divorced from the reality of capitalism), in order to get a unified measure of capital on the monetary scale, the number of heterogeneous capital goods must be multiplied by their monetary amount, and then these products must be added together to get one. However, if we want to calculate the monetary amount of capital, we must first assume that the interest rate is known. According to neoclassical marginal productivity distribution theory, interest rate (or profit rate) is determined by the marginal product of capital. In order to obtain the marginal productivity of capital, it is necessary to predict the amount of capital, while neoclassical theory holds that the monetary amount of material capital is equal to the sum of the present value of expected income. Therefore, in order to calculate the monetary value of capital, we must first assume that the interest rate is known and there is circular inference, which is fatal to neoclassicism. In the technical analysis logic of Walras equilibrium system, there is no trend of unified profit rate at all, but the trend of unified profit rate is indeed a realistic observation. )
————————————————————————————
In addition, talk about surplus value and profit and the price of art.
Profit is not a simple surplus value minus constant capital such as raw materials and land rent. It is actually a currency conversion of surplus value, but the surplus value of loss-making enterprises has not been converted into profit. The surplus value of profitable enterprises or industries, especially high-profit enterprises (industries), may come from other industries.
Therefore, in a single enterprise, the surplus value cannot be directly calculated in terms of money. For example, it is wrong to calculate the surplus value by subtracting the depreciation cost of capital goods such as wages and raw materials from the price of goods sold by enterprises, but it must be converted into labor time to calculate the value and surplus value. If it is not converted into labor time measurement, monetary measurement must be used on the premise that the organic composition of capital is unchanged and the average profit rate is balanced, and it must be assumed that interest rates and monetary values will not change.
But in Marx's theory, the two aggregates are equal, that is, total profit = total surplus value and total production price = total value, that is, the transformation problem.
We can see that in Marx's theory, value is a concept related to total quantity, not an equilibrium price, and price is only the monetary value of value (while in classical economics and neoclassical economics, price is the monetary value of the corresponding object or service).
This explains the price of artworks and Yao Ming's salary. This is only a transfer of value, but the whole system does not add value according to this transaction scale, just like the simple 1 yuan money is transferred from one person to another, which does not consume the corresponding labor and will not add value to 2 yuan money. Yao Ming's wages and the high transaction price of artworks are, to a great extent, the transfer payments from the profits of the rich (capitalists) to these extravagant consumption. We can't ignore the total amount.
_________
Finally, it is proved that the total value is equal to the total production price and the total profit is equal to the total surplus value. For more than 100 years in the last century, both those who opposed Marx's conclusion and those who supported it (such as Japanese neoclassical economist Michio Morishima) regarded Marx's labor theory of value as the labor price theory of classical economics, and thought that the transformation problem, like Ricardo, had the problem of finding the invariant scale of the calculated object, which obviously violated the original intention of some human labor itself in Marx's theory. In this way, when we understand that the meaning of real GDP representing wealth is false or logically wrong, the problem of transformation will be solved, or the problem of transformation is basically a false problem created by commodity fetishism. In fact, Marx's own method has long been solved.
The quantitative transformation model of value transformation should first be established according to Marx's original definition. First, the total value relationship is completely divorced from the relationship between relative price and technical analysis, but only related to the pure social power relationship of labor time, in which people play games. No matter how many concrete material goods are produced in the same labor time, as long as it is related to the equal power relationship dominated by socially necessary labor time, the total value is unchanged and has nothing to do with technical factors.
Assuming that the value of unit labor time is W, and the monetary unit of unit labor time is G, then the monetary value of unit labor time is W = G * W
∑i(aji + c ji)Wj k
lk =∑I Lik * Qi =∑I(∑j(aji+cji)Wjk)Qi
Labor consumption value Vik and total consumption value Vk of unit commodity:
Vik =∑jcji Wjk Vk=∑i∑j cji*Wjk*Qi
Unit commodity/commodity cost price kit and total cost Kt:
Kit =∑j(aji +cji)Pjt
kt =∑iKit * Qi =∑I(∑j(aji+cji)Pjt))Qi
All prepaid capital of unit I commodity fit = ∑ j (bji1+bji2) pjt+bi3.
ft =∑iFit * Qi =∑I(∑j(bji 1+bji 2)Pjt+bi3))Qi
The average surplus value rate m and average profit rate s of all commodities in the system;
k=(G-Lk)/Vk (s )k=(G-Kt)/Ft
The process of starting iteration:
wi k+ 1 =∑j(aji+cji)Wjk+(G-Lk) 1/V * k * Vik
pi k+ 1 =∑j(aji+cji)Pjt+(G-Kt) 1/F * k * Fit
Initial conditions: Wi0= original price of unit commodity I; Pi0=WiN, termination condition: given error ξ 1, ξ2.
Liam k → n ∣ wik+1-wik ∣≤ξ1i =1,2,3 ... n
Liam t → n ∣ PIT+1–pit ∣≤ 9582 i =1,2,3 ... n
Specific solution process: A = inv(X' * X) * X' * Y
∑j(qji*Ej0)=0
∑j(qji*Wj0)=Xi
q2i = H2 * Xi+H3 * q3i+H4 * q4i+……HN * qni I = 1，2，3……n
q 1i =-u2q2i-u3q3i-……-unqni I = 1，2，3……n
In which: UJ = EJ 0/e10h2 =1/(w20-U2 * w10) HJ = (UJ * w10-wj0)/(w20-u2w/kloc).
The two totals are equal, which shows that Marx's labor theory of value is impeccable, so that the labor theory of value actually solves the problems of capital meaning and the sum of heterogeneous capital products involved in the "Cambridge capital debate" in western economics;
At the same time, it also shows that the real GDP (real GDP excluding monetary value) represents the total wealth and the total production function, which is a logical error. In fact, it represents the sum of capitalist domination over labor, and its expressive significance is the total power relationship of capitalism. Value itself is a kind of human labor, so it can only represent power! Just as the atom of exchange rate does not contain any material attributes, it actually represents the power relationship of capital among countries in the capitalist world system. )
Therefore, the so-called economic growth is better than the expansion of capitalist power relations. Of course, it is absolutely the most important for capitalism. As long as it does not grow, capitalism will be paralyzed.
We live in a highly commodity fetishistic society, and the human brain has been formatted.